I agree with those posters who have commented that the real problem is with the legal notion of marriage. To put it bluntly, who I share a house with and who I have sex with -- as long as they are consenting adults -- is nobody's business but my own and theirs. Why on earth should two people in the same house having sex be treated any differently to two people in the same house not having sex, or two people in different houses having sex? Does it make one iota of difference to the business of running the country, enforcing the laws or improving the GDP?

We should all be treated as individuals: the state and the church should have no place in dictating our private activities; and the campaign should be against assigning individuals to categories based on their sexual behaviour. Let's campaign to be free of marriage as a legally recognised state.

More explanation needed, KMB. Whatever your point is, and how it relates to same-sex marriage, I'm afraid it's lost on me.

I remember trying something similar as a child when I got caught out: "But he did it first, Mum!"

It's interesting that only a couple of people have mentioned my comment. They both completely misunderstood my point and ignored my question, so I await with anticipation to see if anyone will attempt to do so.

“I'd also like to know how unfounded claims about the author's motivation further this exchange. Even if it were possible to discredit him by proving some weird animus against "all things outside his understanding," the ideas would still be there to discuss.

The idea of same-sex marriage is becoming more acceptable by the day. It seems to me that personal attacks on its proponents simply highlight the lack of credible arguments against it.”

Woulfe, Unless you know Rodney Croome, his history and how he is viewed by the homosexual community in Tasmania, then you're just trying to be an apologist. Tassie has very advanced acceptance of homosexuals, the majority are happy with civil unions, giving them legitimacy. The heading of Croomes article speaks for itself, “Couples are not couples unless they can marry” and “ Far from being a remedy for discrimination in marriage, civil unions perpetuate discrimination.”

This is an agenda statement, one attempting to create dissent and division within the community, not a furthering of peoples rights. The majority of people of all persuasions in Tas undertake civil ceremonies, it doesn't perpetuate discrimination, but takes it out of religious hands. Rodney Croome represents Rodney Croome and a small bunch of radical misfits, who try to make out they speak for the homosexual community. Whilst in reality, Mr Croome isn't very well liked at all and certainly doesn't have the support of the Tasmanian homosexual community, just the opposite. As with all zealots, he started out on the right foot, but has degenerated into hating any who don't fully accept his point of view as being right. An ideological agenda.

Trav, your question wasn't really a question, was it?

>>If Gay marriage is allowed, then in the future what argument could you put forward against a proposal to allow people to have multiple wives or husbands?<<

The first takes a legal position - the recognition of a one-on-one relationship - and redefines who can take part in it.

The second invites taking an illegal position - that partnerships can contain more than two people - and proposes to make it legal.

But you know this really, don't you? You're just spoiling for a scrap.

Trav,

If you are wondering why no one answers your question, it is because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Same sex unions are already recognised to some extent, and the final hurdle is to recognise them within the marriage act, for amongst other things the benefit of many children born to same sex partners.

Bigamy is a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years.
Recognised SSM does not open the door in anyway to legal recognition of:

- Bigamy
- Incest
- child marriages
- bestiality

or any other idiotic furphy you can dream up.

The sole purpose of your question is to try and muddy the waters with far fetched trivia.